Fathi Shihab-Eddim, a senior aide to Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, has tackled a key problem for Holocaust deniers: where did all of the Jews go? His answer? America, of course.
Shihab-Eddim is responsible for appointing editors of all state-run Egyptian newspapers — a position that would normally require a degree of intellect and insight. Yet, Shihab-Eddim used the Holocaust Remembrance Day on Jan. 27 to explain his theory that this is one big hoax.
It appears that while one boat load of Jewish immigrants on the MS St. Louis were barred entry in various country including the U.S., six million Jews were secretly moved into the United States.
Shihab-Eddim stated that “The myth of the Holocaust is an industry that America invented. U.S. intelligence agencies in cooperation with their counterparts in allied nations during World War II created it [the Holocaust] to destroy the image of their opponents in Germany, and to justify war and massive destruction against military and civilian facilities of the Axis powers, and especially to hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the atomic bomb.” What is interesting is that I did not know that we needed an excuse for the destruction of the war since we did not start it. Moreover, the United States and its allies have been criticized for burying the evidence of the concentration camps to keep it from being a major issue in the war. Some Roosevelt officials like Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr. criticized the Administration for obstructing efforts to deal with the camps. It appears now, according to Shihab-Eddim, Morgenthau was just part of a ruse in writing private papers detailing these complaints.
What is equally impressive is that we got the Germans to go along and all of those American GIs who liberated the camps — as well as a cast of thousands of emancipated individuals and corpses.
It appears that Egypt is moving to join Iran in making Holocaust a prominent part of its government. The absence of any response by Morsi leaves the impression that he either shares or tolerates such extreme views.
Source:UPI
Bill, I mean, Dan:
I am going to use your own rules of evidence, as bizarre as they are, to show that you are flat wrong in your position about the holocaust.
In your link that you provided in how to argue against people who deny your conspiracy theorist views one of the tenants of that and your own statements is that if the opposing person does not argue back your position then you are correct in your position.
Nearly everyone here has said that you are, among other things, a bigot, a holocaust denier, a neo-nazi sympathizer, an admirer of adolf hitler, a hater of Jewish people and a person that foolishly clings to fantastic and wild claims that have mountains and miles of evidence proving otherwise; to which you have not replied or answered. So according to your own set of rules we must all be correct in our positions, that is because you do not reply.
Now for a real world measure.
Everything Malisha, Otteray, Gene, Mike, Mark and me said about your countless logical errors, evidence weighing, and questioning your opinions is spot on and yours are horribly and fatally flawed. And this is evidence by everything they have provided.
But the pragmatic side of me knows that you are going to continue as you do to be lame about it, so I will put it succinctly.
Here is the pattern you follow.
Bill: “Outlandish Statement”
Anyone Else: That is not the case as evidenced by A, B, C, D, etc with provenence of 1,2,3,4
Bill: Anyone else, you don’t know what you’re talking about, you are just a fascist anarchist that believes what Obummer says.
Anyone Else: Prove your position
Bill: I don’t have to do your homework. There is no evidence that adolf hitler wrote a memo that read “I am the walrus” You haven’t proven anything.
Everyone Else: Cut and pastes legions of evidence into the blog
Bill: Again, you haven’t proven anything. Nowhere in the German archives did anyone say “Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna” And the Pentagon was hit by a missile because a jackalope in Idaho speaks French.
etc, etc.
You see, when a person has a debate with a worthy opponent, people like me and some of the others do not have to resort to riducule because it is wrothwhile to argue the points. You on the other hand refuse to offer any evidence to support your position, and blindly deny any fact anyone other than yourself presents. So, all that is left for us to do is to ridicule you. While this is somewhat out of place for this legal / justice blog, I am sure that many will make a small exception in order to bask in the schadenfreude of watching you be made fun of and the spectacle of you making yourself look like a shimmering full-blown technicolor idiot.
And to a great extent it is healthy thing for people to watch bigoted, nazi sympathizing fools be pummelled as soundly as you have been because it is not every day society gets to see bigots like you ripped a new one. It is a worthy public service.
Mike S
i just pop some popcorn and watch.
Mike,
If they think they are going to get the last word, they underestimate Gene and me. My banker once told me, while I was giving a car dealer a hard time, that I had the patience of a pipe smoker. I also have the mental set of a Scottish Border Collie. I am not about to let one get away. If you recall, Brentley did not get the last word either.
OS,
Cool……..I’m enjoying it and I could always use a refresher course. 🙂
You want more sport? Here you go. This is a documentary on Jasenovac, not the largest but considered one of the worst camps for the “Final Solution.”
OS & Gene,
You’ve proven and reproven your case beautifully and argued eloquently. The problems is unfortunately, as you well know, that bigots are never interested in truth, only the false evidence that re-inforces their bigotry. Bill & Dan, if indeed they are two people, are only here to spout their hatred and it seems not even capable of making more than the lamest case. Just further examples of how pathetically some people need other people to hate, in order to stop loathing themselves.
Forgot to remove the HTML security code. Trying again.
Dan,
Evidence, per the rules of any competent trier of fact (a trier of fact is the Court and jury), includes first hand testimony (hearsay is not admissible). It may include photographs, film that has not been manipulated (almost impossible before Photoshop), official documents that have been authenticated, and documents written contemporaneously such as diaries and interview notes.
Here is one part of a multi-part documentary newsreel put together shortly after the camps were liberated by allied troops. You want evidence sport, here is a tiny sampling of the miles of film made by both professional journalists as well as army photographers. This is Part 4. You can easily find the rest of the multi-part series. The primary thing missing is the smell. Watch the whole thing if you have the guts.
Dan,
If you don’t want to present evidence to back your claims?
You lose.
Sorry. That’s how argument works.
Your boy presented his claim and evidence, the group presented higher quality evidence and argument he was unable to rebut. However, if you wish to pick up his standard, the burden of proof rests with you on rebuttal.
Get to work, slacker.
__________
Malisha,
You are a master of the limerick. BTW, I snorted coffee when I read “I am sorr.”
I will not do your homework for you. What type of evidence are you looking for Gene? If you can move a rock with words what does evidence even mean to you, you have special powers, my words are no match for your magic, supported solely by “personal testomony”.
Gene H, you said, “Someone here is certainly playing with their ipse dixit.”
Sorry, I have to call you on that one. Should be:
“Someone here is certainly playing with his or her ipse dixit.”
The Holocaust Denier inflicts it, 👿
While playing with his “ipse dixit,” 🙄
But while he’s debating,
It’s so elongating, ➡ ➡ ➡
It breaks and nobody can fix it! 😳
Still waiting for your evidence.
Or perpetual lack thereof.
Gene when you say “go ahead and declare victory” what does that mean, are you conceding or, maybe you have a diffrent meaning? You may want to sign yourself up for america’s got talent for that rock trick you can do, really quite impressive. Have you ever dealt with cognative dissonance while reasearching major world events and if so how did you deal with it?
Gene,
I don’t get it. Miles of movie film, hundreds of thousands of photos, sworn testimony of hundreds of witnesses in a number of trials, a dwindling number of survivors still telling their grim stories of what it was like, and the untold thousands of pages of carefully documented captured records do not make a dent in the true believer’s conviction they have the sole truth. Based on the delusional belief system of a handful of racists and anti-semites. Wow.
Now if we can get some of what they are smoking for less than $200 an ounce, maybe we can get happy too.
And Dan? You’re really going to have to learn to argue better or I’m simply going to keep making you look like a monkey. I can argue a rock into gravel and running circles around you Holocaust deniers doesn’t even come close to a challenge.
Carry on.
No. Because the evidence said so.
Really, you should stay away from terms you don’t understand. It makes you look like as much of a pseudo-intellectual and fraud as being a Holocaust denier does. If you have evidence of bias in either judgement or evidence in the Irving trial? Submit it. Or realize you yourself are making an ipse dixit argument.
As for making stuff up? I didn’t make up anything. I simply provided, above, a copy of the expert testimony used successfully against David Irving. Facts that survived the evidentiary process and were used in court. Again, your willingness to ignore it, inability to read it and/or inability to understand it notwithstanding, Dan.
Again an ipse dixit argument….. because the court said so. I guess you feel judges are completely unbias, and what they say is fact always. I try to let science guide my fact finding not politics, popularity, or a court. Congrats at being a part of the team that “provided a key piece of evidence used to hand Irving his loss” Do you normally just make stuff up?
There is plenty of evidence presented upthread.
Your willingness to ignore it, inability to read it and/or inability to understand it notwithstanding, Dan.
A Holocaust denier, David Irving, got his hat handed to him in court for the very same claims bill was making and I provided a key piece of evidence used to hand Irving his loss.
Your denial of the facts is irrelevant.
Gene, again I know you are but what am I… and top it off by “But go ahead and declare victory. It’s funny considering you’ve offered even less evidence or logic than bill in support of Holocaust deniers.” Thank you. I am happy I was so impressionalbe without facts or evidence, just by pointing out the psychology behind it. Thanks again.
No, Dan. Precision in terms is the enemy of deceit. That’s what you get for using a term you not only didn’t know how to spell, but manifestly what it meant either. But go ahead and declare victory. It’s funny considering you’ve offered even less evidence or logic than bill in support of Holocaust deniers.
What ever makes you happy Gene. I know you are but what am I is a sign of defeat, I accept the white flag and you should choose to be discomforted by the facts but follow them, even though it is uncomfortable.
That would be ipse dixit, not ipsy, and in Latin it means “He, himself, said it”. It’s also known as the bare assertion fallacy – when an arbitrary dogmatic term or statement is used which the speaker expects the listener to accept as valid without evidence or substantive logic.
Which oddly enough is an exact description of bill’s behavior.
Someone here is certainly playing with their ipse dixit.
His initials are BM.
Of course, now he has your help, Dan.